To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 3627
3626  |  3628
Subject: 
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:28:45 GMT
Viewed: 
1347 times
  
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
I see evidence that people do, and with a
system which actually rewards teachers (I think teachers pay is going to
rise dramatically in Liberatopia), I expect a LOT more teachers to care.

Sadly, as the wages go up, teachers who care less will be attracted the the
profession. Not that teachers shouldn't be paid more, it's just a problem • to
keep in mind I guess!

   Your posts are moving from annoying to hilarious. What have we got now?
Teachers who could care less!  Why?  I care about kids, and I know most
people do.  I know most people can't live off a teacher's wages the way
they'd like to (well that definitely applies to me anyway).

There will be some kind of correctional system, funded by fees to
property owners who wish to keep the crooks of the street at worst. In
order for this correctional system to operate the most efficiently, it
must do more than simply warehouse the crooks. It will (over the long
term) find the most cost effective amount of education to give to
produce the most income from the crooks. Those crooks who are not
"lifers" will leave with a usefull skill, and in many cases will have
paid off any financial debt they owe.

Has anyone ever sat down and calculated the number and extent of • third-party
fees? I mean, would people rather pay 100+ bills per month, or would they • just
organise a monthly lump payment. And then, isn't that just a customised
tax?

   I guess you could look at it that way.  But here are the advantages:
You can choose who you buy your service from.
   The competition causes you to pay less.
You pay the actual cost instead of some arbitrary number.
   If its too much for you, you can choose another provider (for whichever
service) or you can always move.

   And here are the disadvantages:

Things like security would have to be financed by *everyone* in the street, • so
some of these taxes would stop being optional?

   If you mean social security, it would fall under insurance, as would
unemployment.  Insurance companies, being both accountable for their actions
and competitive would be much for useful and affordable than they are today.

   If you mean security, as in police protection, this is one of the few
things that is within the proper scope of the government.  It supports
itself the way it does now, through court costs, bribery, whoops, just
kidding.  The user fees are paid by those who break the law and "use" the
courts and jails - the criminals, otherwise they can't eat.  NSTAAFL

Also, as each of these individual services is a profit-making company • trying to
compete (and spending millions on advertising doing so), then is there much
reason to believe that the total would be much less, if not more?

   If they want to stay in business they will have to remain affordable, or
else lose all there revenue to competitors.  For you, if you make $30,000 a
year, these actual costs added all together might be more.  For an
entrepreneur or someone like Bill Gates these costs would be a fraction of
what they are currently paying.  I think you believe you have a right to
some of Bill Gates money because he is so successful.  Or that you have a
right to mine.  I don't believe that, myself.  In fact, I don't think that
encourages success, at all.  Just think, though, if your making $30,000 now,
and you actually work for it, you'll probably make quite a bit more in a
Libertarian society.

Richard

--
   Have fun!
   John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/



Message has 3 Replies:
  Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) I don't believe that myself either, in fact I've no idea where it came from! Do you believe that just because I don't agree 100% with you that automatically makes me socialist, communist, or any other leftist label? I'm tired trying to argue (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) ObPetPeeve: No we bloody well don't. The expression is "couldn't care less", ya damn buffoon. For whatever reason, this particular one _really_ grates. I suppoose because you're saying exactly the opposite of what you're trying to convey. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) And be able to do much less with it? Jasper (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) Agreed, studies of synaptic development favour the 'nurture' in nurture vs nature. (...) Sadly, as the wages go up, teachers who care less will be attracted the the profession. Not that teachers shouldn't be paid more, it's just a problem to (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

209 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR